Person buys marijuana legally. Becomes heavy user. Gateways over to a heavier substance. Becomes addicted. Ends up homeless, begs for money to buy drugs from the government.
Nice little logical fallacies you have there. Using pot doesn't mean you will turn to harder drugs, not even that a large majority will. I know people that smoked quite a bit, but they never expressed interest in anything harder (indeed, since they knew the dangers of the harder stuff, they decided it wasn't worth bothering with).
Also, you ignore the fact that should a person end up homeless because they'd rahter just smoke pot, that's their choice. They wanted to keep pushing things further, they choose NOT to get help, they choose to beg. That is within their rights.
So you want to remove a whole group of people's rights because some of that group can't handle freedom? Might as well just rip of the Constitution and install a facsist government right now.
Wow really? Can't be that hard, since when alcohol WAS illegal, there was still plenty being made.
Indeed, a company I worked for had quite a few amature beer brewers. I take it you haven't seen the Sam Adams contest looking for the best amature brewed beer? Its really not much of an investment at all to get going.
Controversially, that would leave the law enforcement agencies referenced here and TFA without jobs.
No it would not. They could refocus on the many problems that would still exist; terrorism, murder, robbery. Indeed, THAT would likely be benefical, as more police time investigating murder would likely bring about more convictions.
Investingating illegal drug use and prostitution is distracting from other more pressing problems.
Actually much of the problem WOULD go away. You know, unconstitutional police power, prison overcrowding, legal system overload, the high cost of keeping officers on the street, the violence by those bringing in illegal drugs, the violence caused by the users trying to get drugs (because since its illegal, they are almost more expensive).
You know, all the problems that prohibition created when it was in effect by giving rise to the mob.
Also, the justice system could focus on more important things, like terrorism (although it would be best if they were a bit more restricted, like before the patiot act).
The thing is that the "war on drugs" has become such a profit driven thing by our government that they cannot legalize it anymore because it would kill their bottom line
No it wouldn't, because they could tax drug sales. The reasoning to legalize them is still you have the RIGHT to do with your body what you want, but that doesn't mean the government still couldn't tax them.
Yes, there was a time that Christianity followed a similar precept, but they finally moved on. Unfortunately, there is no way to win against this type of belief except by killing them all.
Really? Is that why there are no more Christians in the world?
Its not that we don't know, its that you're across an ocean. Do you live in the UK? Are you worried about the typhoon in China? No? Typical UKer, not caring about anything but themselves!
Wow, what a stupid remark. You completely ignore the other items that you likely WOULD take with you everwhere, and assume its the family heirloom that's always with him (when any reasonable person knows that yes, you sometimes DO have such items, but no, not all the time).
Quite being a self centered ass; your few minutes isn't worth someone else's broken laptop.
Because they don't exactly take great care of luggage in the cargo hold. And because if you have EVERYTHING in one bag, you can get out of the airport much much quicker?
No it doesn't. They negotiated no right of ownership, thus it doesn't exist. From all accounts, Hoboken screwed up big.
The idea of licensing software, especially software required to run a physical item, is a shaky idea. I'd argue that if you buy a robot that needs software to run, you have an implicit ownership of said software, because as pointed out, without the software, the robot is not as useful. Licensing such as this is a scum ball tactic which should not be allowed.
They'd probably try - robopark has accused them of attempting to steal their software.
You mean infringe upon the copyright of their software. At any rate, I would think that'd be their right. The software is as much an operating system as linux or windows. You could buy an Apple, and attempt to install any other OS on the computer that you wished, and I doubt Apple would have much recourse.
First, THERE IS NO CONSENSUS THAT A BLOGGER IS A JOURNALIST.
That doesn't matter. Just because some people don't believe he's a journalist doesn't mean he is not.
I AM NOT arguing in any way against the freedom of the press.
But you are; you're saying he's not a journalist, when its clear he is.
I AM arguing that a BLOGGER cannot arbitrarily defy the law by claiming they are a journalist. My "inappropriate" analogy was to illustrate how far things could go if this was indeed the case.
He was present at an event, did not take part (as far as I can tell), and reported his findings to the world at large. What more do you want? He's not 'arbitrarily defying the law,' the CA law is on his side.
Your inappropriate analogy is still inappropriate to this case. If the person filming the rape only kept it within the group (that is, he didn't report it) he's not acting in a press capacity. If he did release it, he'd be reporting on it.
The problem is the level of participation. Did they know his friends were going to find a girl and rape her? If he did, he has an obligation to report it (obviously). If they were just out and he was filming and some of the group just decided to do this, it becomes someone more shaky.
In this case however, its less shaky, since the actions of burning the car was a political statement. Clearly raping a girl is not a political statement ever. That's another point where your analogy falls apart. Destruction of property, while wrong and not Constitutionally protected speech (I would think), is not as sever as raping a girl (which is not any kind of expression at all). Also, the police in this case were already well aware of what going on, where your analogy the police do not.
Finally, as far as your 'this is where the logic leads,' I'm not convienced it would ever lead that far. No reasonable person would believe that a person that likely knows his friends are about to commit a crime is attempting to be a journalist. Do Constitutional protects sometimes let real criminals get away with the crime? Yes. Is that worse than a government which is actively intruding on Constitutional rights? No. The framers knowingly made it very difficult for the government to do its job, so that it doesn't become easy for the government to become abusive.
Its too bad you had to post AC (I totally understand why though), as I almost didn't read your comment (ACs start at -1 for me..)
At anyrate, the problem becomes that the government could compel you to had over ANY tape on which they THINK a crime might have been recorded. As a journalist, I think you can see why that could be a problem. Its not only protection of sources, its protection of what the journalist investigated. Think of a case where the government finds you have a tape you're doing to use in your investigation; they could demand you hand it over (and likely a copy won't do... they'll want the original, because a copy may have been edited by you) and you never see that tape again.
If the actions were in plain site (which it seems they were) they should be able to find someone that saw it and is willing to testify, should they not? No one was around except the protesters?
I never said the people in this particular case had a privacy right or need to be protected; its the tactics used by the government which have implications in other cases which is the problem.
I'm not so sure about that. AFAIK, OJ Simpson lost the wrongful death civil case against him big time, but has yet to pay a dime of it.
First, I don't recall hearing OJ filed (and got) bancruptcy. Second, I believe I recall he entered in a settlement with them, the terms of which are secret.
If what you're saying is true, he should be in jail.
Your analogy stinks and is inappropriate. You don't need an analogy here at all, because the topic being discussed is clear. You're trying to equate protests aimed at the goverment, which turned violent, to raping a teenage girl. Utter bullshit, and you're attempting to argue your point based on exteme emotional responses, NOT logic.
The problem with letting the judge decide is that then the judge can decide in other cases. The idea of a free media is so that the media can tell us about the wrong doing of the government, TO UNDERMINE WHAT THE GOVERMENT IS DOING.
Letting the government get involved in deciding what is protected and what is not will lead us to state run media and loss of our freedoms.
Then there are the state's rights issues; the feds don't have any jurisdiction here. In other words, the federal government isn't even following its own laws. What exactly does that say? The goverment is free to do anything, yet we must bow before it? Again, bullshit, unless what you really want is a fascist or totalitarian government.
They burned a police car as a symbol of protest. They are NOT running around starting fires because they want to see how many people get caught in them and how much property they have destroyed.
The fact is that no one is in danger of these people.
Learn to think. We'd still be British colonies (with all the abuses) if things were left up to you.
I still fail to see what this guy is protecting. Why not surrender the materials if they really show nothing wrong?
Perhaps because in the future protesters will avoid him and potential informants will avoid him? Really, its not about THIS case that the shield matters; its keeping a journalist free to talk to informants who require that their identity be hidden.
If, as a journalist, you turn over any of your sources or materials, no one will seek you out so that you can tell the world of some scandle or wrongdoing. If THIS guy is forced to hand things over, other journalists may be forced to as well. So now that ANY journalist can be forced to reveal their sources, no one will come forward for fear of being found out.
Um, the scary thing is that the federal government claims it has jurisdiction in the case, when its logic to have said juristiction is scary.
If allowed, basically the feds can do whatever they want in violation to states rights, since every state uses federal money for something.
The problem is that the feds steal our money, then make our reps beg to get it BACK into their state. Its obscene and should not be allowed.
Instead, the states should be collecting all tax money, and pass it to the feds. If the state doesn't like something, they should be able to withhold most of the funds. Not all, because we don't want the states to kill the federal goverment, but most, because MOST of the power is supposed to be with the states anyway.
True, accidents happen, but when have you ever been shocked in your current AC data center? If you haven't, than DC should be just as safe... unless you're actually doing the wiring.
Which makes the argument that they OWN a right to use the software more valid, in my opinion.
Hopefully while the new contract is playing out the city will reverse engineer the software, and kick these assholes to the curb.
At any rate, it doesn't change that fact that the analogy is lame and unnecessary, and an attempt to confuse the issues (by claiming the city had to right to its own garage).
Slashdot Mirror
Person buys marijuana legally. Becomes heavy user. Gateways over to a heavier substance. Becomes addicted. Ends up homeless, begs for money to buy drugs from the government.
Nice little logical fallacies you have there. Using pot doesn't mean you will turn to harder drugs, not even that a large majority will. I know people that smoked quite a bit, but they never expressed interest in anything harder (indeed, since they knew the dangers of the harder stuff, they decided it wasn't worth bothering with).
Also, you ignore the fact that should a person end up homeless because they'd rahter just smoke pot, that's their choice. They wanted to keep pushing things further, they choose NOT to get help, they choose to beg. That is within their rights.
So you want to remove a whole group of people's rights because some of that group can't handle freedom? Might as well just rip of the Constitution and install a facsist government right now.
Wow really? Can't be that hard, since when alcohol WAS illegal, there was still plenty being made.
Indeed, a company I worked for had quite a few amature beer brewers. I take it you haven't seen the Sam Adams contest looking for the best amature brewed beer? Its really not much of an investment at all to get going.
Controversially, that would leave the law enforcement agencies referenced here and TFA without jobs.
No it would not. They could refocus on the many problems that would still exist; terrorism, murder, robbery. Indeed, THAT would likely be benefical, as more police time investigating murder would likely bring about more convictions.
Investingating illegal drug use and prostitution is distracting from other more pressing problems.
Actually much of the problem WOULD go away. You know, unconstitutional police power, prison overcrowding, legal system overload, the high cost of keeping officers on the street, the violence by those bringing in illegal drugs, the violence caused by the users trying to get drugs (because since its illegal, they are almost more expensive).
You know, all the problems that prohibition created when it was in effect by giving rise to the mob.
Also, the justice system could focus on more important things, like terrorism (although it would be best if they were a bit more restricted, like before the patiot act).
The thing is that the "war on drugs" has become such a profit driven thing by our government that they cannot legalize it anymore because it would kill their bottom line
No it wouldn't, because they could tax drug sales. The reasoning to legalize them is still you have the RIGHT to do with your body what you want, but that doesn't mean the government still couldn't tax them.
Based on what? It may be a bad idea, but that's what Hoboken negotiated.
I'd call that tactic bad faith negotiating.
Not much of an argument. Do you have any sort of precedent to back this up, or are you arguing from some sense of fair play?
Arguing from a sense of fair play. Isn't that what justice and law is about; being fair? I think it is.
Yes, there was a time that Christianity followed a similar precept, but they finally moved on. Unfortunately, there is no way to win against this type of belief except by killing them all.
Really? Is that why there are no more Christians in the world?
Its not that we don't know, its that you're across an ocean. Do you live in the UK? Are you worried about the typhoon in China? No? Typical UKer, not caring about anything but themselves!
Why would terror attacks in the UK, Russia or Spain worry any American that isn't in one of those countries?
Might as well worry about the typhoon that is about to hit China...
Wow, what a stupid remark. You completely ignore the other items that you likely WOULD take with you everwhere, and assume its the family heirloom that's always with him (when any reasonable person knows that yes, you sometimes DO have such items, but no, not all the time).
Quite being a self centered ass; your few minutes isn't worth someone else's broken laptop.
Because they don't exactly take great care of luggage in the cargo hold. And because if you have EVERYTHING in one bag, you can get out of the airport much much quicker?
Indeed. Ever notice that the US terror level has NEVER gone below the midpoint since its inception? Any bets on to when it may?
No it doesn't. They negotiated no right of ownership, thus it doesn't exist. From all accounts, Hoboken screwed up big.
The idea of licensing software, especially software required to run a physical item, is a shaky idea. I'd argue that if you buy a robot that needs software to run, you have an implicit ownership of said software, because as pointed out, without the software, the robot is not as useful. Licensing such as this is a scum ball tactic which should not be allowed.
They'd probably try - robopark has accused them of attempting to steal their software.
You mean infringe upon the copyright of their software. At any rate, I would think that'd be their right. The software is as much an operating system as linux or windows. You could buy an Apple, and attempt to install any other OS on the computer that you wished, and I doubt Apple would have much recourse.
First, THERE IS NO CONSENSUS THAT A BLOGGER IS A JOURNALIST.
That doesn't matter. Just because some people don't believe he's a journalist doesn't mean he is not.
I AM NOT arguing in any way against the freedom of the press.
But you are; you're saying he's not a journalist, when its clear he is.
I AM arguing that a BLOGGER cannot arbitrarily defy the law by claiming they are a journalist. My "inappropriate" analogy was to illustrate how far things could go if this was indeed the case.
He was present at an event, did not take part (as far as I can tell), and reported his findings to the world at large. What more do you want? He's not 'arbitrarily defying the law,' the CA law is on his side.
Your inappropriate analogy is still inappropriate to this case. If the person filming the rape only kept it within the group (that is, he didn't report it) he's not acting in a press capacity. If he did release it, he'd be reporting on it.
The problem is the level of participation. Did they know his friends were going to find a girl and rape her? If he did, he has an obligation to report it (obviously). If they were just out and he was filming and some of the group just decided to do this, it becomes someone more shaky.
In this case however, its less shaky, since the actions of burning the car was a political statement. Clearly raping a girl is not a political statement ever. That's another point where your analogy falls apart. Destruction of property, while wrong and not Constitutionally protected speech (I would think), is not as sever as raping a girl (which is not any kind of expression at all). Also, the police in this case were already well aware of what going on, where your analogy the police do not.
Finally, as far as your 'this is where the logic leads,' I'm not convienced it would ever lead that far. No reasonable person would believe that a person that likely knows his friends are about to commit a crime is attempting to be a journalist. Do Constitutional protects sometimes let real criminals get away with the crime? Yes. Is that worse than a government which is actively intruding on Constitutional rights? No. The framers knowingly made it very difficult for the government to do its job, so that it doesn't become easy for the government to become abusive.
Its too bad you had to post AC (I totally understand why though), as I almost didn't read your comment (ACs start at -1 for me..)
At anyrate, the problem becomes that the government could compel you to had over ANY tape on which they THINK a crime might have been recorded. As a journalist, I think you can see why that could be a problem. Its not only protection of sources, its protection of what the journalist investigated. Think of a case where the government finds you have a tape you're doing to use in your investigation; they could demand you hand it over (and likely a copy won't do... they'll want the original, because a copy may have been edited by you) and you never see that tape again.
If the actions were in plain site (which it seems they were) they should be able to find someone that saw it and is willing to testify, should they not? No one was around except the protesters?
I never said the people in this particular case had a privacy right or need to be protected; its the tactics used by the government which have implications in other cases which is the problem.
Which you can offset by adding the sender to a safe senders list..
I'm not so sure about that. AFAIK, OJ Simpson lost the wrongful death civil case against him big time, but has yet to pay a dime of it.
First, I don't recall hearing OJ filed (and got) bancruptcy. Second, I believe I recall he entered in a settlement with them, the terms of which are secret.
If what you're saying is true, he should be in jail.
Your analogy stinks and is inappropriate. You don't need an analogy here at all, because the topic being discussed is clear. You're trying to equate protests aimed at the goverment, which turned violent, to raping a teenage girl. Utter bullshit, and you're attempting to argue your point based on exteme emotional responses, NOT logic.
The problem with letting the judge decide is that then the judge can decide in other cases. The idea of a free media is so that the media can tell us about the wrong doing of the government, TO UNDERMINE WHAT THE GOVERMENT IS DOING.
Letting the government get involved in deciding what is protected and what is not will lead us to state run media and loss of our freedoms.
Then there are the state's rights issues; the feds don't have any jurisdiction here. In other words, the federal government isn't even following its own laws. What exactly does that say? The goverment is free to do anything, yet we must bow before it? Again, bullshit, unless what you really want is a fascist or totalitarian government.
You're such a fucking idiot.
They burned a police car as a symbol of protest. They are NOT running around starting fires because they want to see how many people get caught in them and how much property they have destroyed.
The fact is that no one is in danger of these people.
Learn to think. We'd still be British colonies (with all the abuses) if things were left up to you.
I still fail to see what this guy is protecting. Why not surrender the materials if they really show nothing wrong?
Perhaps because in the future protesters will avoid him and potential informants will avoid him? Really, its not about THIS case that the shield matters; its keeping a journalist free to talk to informants who require that their identity be hidden.
If, as a journalist, you turn over any of your sources or materials, no one will seek you out so that you can tell the world of some scandle or wrongdoing. If THIS guy is forced to hand things over, other journalists may be forced to as well. So now that ANY journalist can be forced to reveal their sources, no one will come forward for fear of being found out.
Um, the scary thing is that the federal government claims it has jurisdiction in the case, when its logic to have said juristiction is scary.
If allowed, basically the feds can do whatever they want in violation to states rights, since every state uses federal money for something.
The problem is that the feds steal our money, then make our reps beg to get it BACK into their state. Its obscene and should not be allowed.
Instead, the states should be collecting all tax money, and pass it to the feds. If the state doesn't like something, they should be able to withhold most of the funds. Not all, because we don't want the states to kill the federal goverment, but most, because MOST of the power is supposed to be with the states anyway.
Hopefully the case will be appealed, and this federal judges ruling overturned.
If I'm not mistaken, bankruptcy does not free you from court ordered payments. You must still pay those.
True, accidents happen, but when have you ever been shocked in your current AC data center? If you haven't, than DC should be just as safe... unless you're actually doing the wiring.
Which makes the argument that they OWN a right to use the software more valid, in my opinion.
Hopefully while the new contract is playing out the city will reverse engineer the software, and kick these assholes to the curb.
At any rate, it doesn't change that fact that the analogy is lame and unnecessary, and an attempt to confuse the issues (by claiming the city had to right to its own garage).